Quote:Yeah, see, let me iterate some of the differences.
The movie itself is in the same line as 'Captain Planet and the Planeteers'. By this I mean that it is designed to show things from the environmentalist view point and make things as scary as possible, to scare people into doing what ever it is the movie/show tells you to do. It is a movie talking about doomsday scenarios.
1) One's a cartoon, one's a documentary.
2) One presents the notion that polluting the earth is bad, and gives specific tips on how to pollute less. It also says magic rice can cause you to repeatedly clone yourself and eat all the food of your village. The other tells you that a specific thing we are doing to the earth is putting the ecosystem in great danger, and provides scientific data, graphs, and photographs to make its case that the danger caused by this is real and already affecting us.
3) One's doomsday scenario involves a man called Galm killing the spirit of the earth and throwing the planet into the sun. One involves polar ice caps melting.
I'm not certain why you compared a cartoon of an ecological theme to a documentary that is supported by scientific evidence. I think it is perhaps because you, personally, are a cartoon.
Quote:Yes, I too have heard of "If Footmen Tire You, What Will Horses Do". Nice to see you repeating it verbatim, thus proving that it did exactly what it was supposed to do, I guess. Do you also expect the Communist invasion of America to occur at any moment? If not, you better watch it again. Remember, if you believe in Jesus, the Communists will stab you in ear with a stick, causing you to puke up glue. It's TRUE!
When you start showing small children political movies and telling the kids these movies are fact, I remember something. In Cuba, after Castro took over, he had section of class that did the following. First, the kids are told to pray to God for candy, while they had their heads down on the desks. Predictably nothing happened. Next the kids repeated the same steps, only they prayed to Castro. Magically candy rained down from the ceiling (aided by the people who moved the ceiling panels and threw it into the holes, then closed them before the kids could look up), proving Castro was the source of great things.
Quote:There's no difference between old growth forest and new growth, kids. None at all.
Trees they would replace... it was all about the evil loggers.
Quote:You'll no doubt be horrified to know that that was a malicious lie, spread by rags like the Washington Times and parroted by the "liberal" mainstream press (not to mention people like you) who swallowed it wholesale and without any questioning.
Besides random championing of environmentalist causes, I remember him during the 2000 election. Mainly because he did this stunt. I used the page as it has the clearest example of him doing something so two-faced. If you can't tell I mean the photo op bit with the kayak.
It's not nice to tell lies about other people, Necratoid. You should stop. Also, you should probably stop reading websites like that, or at least attempt to remember that maybe everything you read on a vicious Al-Gore-bashing page is not 100% true.
Now let's examine the differences between the medieval Catholic church selling indulgences and pollution credits:
1) One is paying money to sin with a clean conscience.
2) One is paying money so an industry that for whatever reason cannot reduce its pollutions yet, will therefore pay a penalty in exchange for a difference industry which is polluting even less than it is allowed to, thus balancing the needs of industry against the needs of an overall pollution reduction for an entire nation.
An actual analogy would be if you could only pay for an indulgence if you could find a man who had confessed but never actually commited any sins. Of course, this obviously wasn't the case, because the two things aren't fricking comparable.
Quote:On the other hand, to his credit, he never went on the Internet and told lies about you. So that's one thing he's got over you, huh?
So when I see Al Gore, I see a creepy, two-faced weasel...
Quote:Actually, you were told that if you couldn't find backing by a reputable and unbiased group of scientists, your opinion is worth jack because you don't know what you're talking about.
On the first page, you can see where I was told that because I dont have like 9 degrees in climatology I cant comment and should shut up and go away.
There is therefore a degree of separation here that you're ignoring: if there was any reputable scientific groups that agreed with you, you'd be totally welcome in an discussion about climate change. It's just the fact that there isn't that makes your opinon largely worthless.
Tell me, Necratoid - do YOU think you could build a rocketship better than a degreed engineer who's worked on them at NASA can? If so, why exactly? If not, why do you feel you're qualified to argue with thousands of similarly experienced and qualified scientists about climate change?
That's the question which underlies the whole thing. I know you'll never answer it, because you are far more interested in ideology than facts, but kindly stop misrrepresenting what was said to you.